Update from the Heartland
No.343
30.6.08 – 6.7.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
No.343
30.6.08 – 6.7.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
When in the course of human events . . .
We hold these truths to be self-evident . . .
The very Liberty we enjoy today sprouted from those glorious words, 232 years ago, and those that followed. May God bless the freedom He has given all of mankind. Someday, all of mankind shall enjoy their God-given rights and live in peace as God intended.
The follow-up news items:
-- A few more thoughts on the Heller decision [342]:
1. We came within one vote of losing a constitutional protection of our individual rights.
2. This is why a president’s supreme court nominations are so bloody important.
3.. An additional perspective below.
-- The African Union Summit welcomed Zimbabwean dictator Robert Mugabe as a bona fide state leader. [330, 336, 342] They failed in their opportunity to do the correct thing for the Zimbabwean people. I am truly sorry to say, if Zimbabwe’s neighbors cannot see reality, then I shall suggest they are not worth a single drop of American blood or a single cent of treasure. We shall continue our utterances of outrage and protest because that is what we do, but Zimbabweans must find the will to change their lot in life. As long as the killing is confined to that tragically impoverished country, the World just does not care. Where is our humanity?
-- President Bush nominated Lieutenant General Ann E. Dunwoody, USA, for promotion to the rank of General (4 stars), the first woman in U.S. history to be so appointed, and to be posted as Commanding General, Army Materiel Command. Congratulations, General Dunwoody. Senate confirmation awaits.
-- While the details of the Columbian hostage rescue mission are a little odd to me, I shall give them the benefit of the doubt and say congratulations to the government of Columbia for the ingenious rescue of 3 American and 12 Columbian captives held for many years by Marxist FARC terrorists. Well done!
I recognized the following article in an earlier Update [210] and protested the violation of national security in wartime.
“Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts”
by James Risen and Eric Lichtblau
New York Times
Published: December 16, 2005
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16program.html
As a consequence of the Times exposé, the President acknowledged the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP) in a radio broadcast the following day. A number of lawsuits followed, including one filed by the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, Inc., an Oregon Nonprofit Corporation, and Plaintiffs in the case of Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation v Bush. In February 2004, Plaintiff’s alleged that as a consequence of the Government’s TSP, the Federal Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) froze Al-Haramain’s assets while investigating whether Al-Haramain was engaged in terrorist activities. During the discovery process, the Government – namely OFAC – inadvertently disclosed to the Plaintiffs a clearly marked, TOP SECRET document reportedly identifying the products of warrantless surveillance of Al-Haramain. The meanderings of this case through the Judiciary have already exceeded the capacity of this humble forum as it began with an order by District Judge Garr M. King, United States District Court, District of Oregon, which was appealed to the 9th Circuit, which in turn combined with other judicial actions and remanded back to the lower court. The latest event was reported in:
“Judge Rejects Bush’s View on Wiretaps”
by Eric Lichtblau
New York Times
Published: July 3, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/washington/03fisa.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
The principal issue in the now titled In Re: National Security Agency Telecommunications Records Litigation [Case M:06-cv-01791-VRW (2008)] has become a contest over the contents of the Government’s classified document, now referred to as the “Sealed Document.” United States District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker, Northern District of California, dismissed the case with leave to amend, which means the Plaintiffs did not provide an adequate argument to overcome the state secrets privilege of the Executive. I suspect this case is far from over. The trip down memory lane displayed in the court documents made public to date accentuates a number of societal issues. One of many issues in this and the other associated cases rests in the reality that some American citizens as well as both authorized resident and illegal aliens are enemy operatives, direct supporters of enemy agents, or sympathizers who offer passive acquiescence to enemy activities. We have welcomed foreigners into our midst who are intent upon the destruction or at least immobilization of the United States. These individuals and groups have learned our systems and processes, to use them carefully for cover of their dastardly work. The Government recognized the pervasiveness of the intermingled threat and took extraordinary measures under their liberal interpretation of the legislated counter-terrorism tools and Article II of the Constitution. The results to date tend to validate the Government’s actions. However, as we can see in this litigation, the equally extraordinary potential for abuse by the Federal Government cannot be ignored. The courts have illuminated the past abuses of the Executive that led to the Church Committee and the resultant Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA): [PL 95-511]. The excesses of FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover and President Richard M. Nixon diminished the authority and narrowed the latitude of action available to the Executive. President George W. Bush stretched those constraints far beyond commonly accepted limits. While I have given the Federal Executive exceptional wartime latitude, the signs of abuse are mounting, and we are likely facing renewed efforts to further constrain the President, which will not be a positive action for our ability to wage war successfully. This particular case gives us a sad view of the current Executive that is trying mightily to do what must be done in the War on Islamic Fascism, but is hampered by the arrogance of power and the ineptitude of its minions. I believe the Government needs the power of the TSP et al, but security at the price of our freedom is no security whatsoever. The vigil continues.
A long-time friend and contributor asked:
“Have you seen anything on the recently approved Presidential Finding that authorizes $400M for covert operations in Iran with authority to use deadly force in defense? Ostensibly the op is under Cheney and will try to destabilize the current Iranian government. I heard about it on NPR today [Monday, 30.June], so I don't have any secret source.”
My answer:
The first public acknowledgment of the covert initiative in Iran was a news flash and subsequent interviews with Seymour Hersh about his article:
“Preparing the Battlefield – The Bush Administration steps up its secret moves against Iran”
by Seymour M. Hersh
The New Yorker magazine
Published: July 7, 2008
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh
A Presidential Finding as well as the conduct of such activity would certainly not be a surprise to me given the history of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the last 30 years and the IRI’s continuing defiance of international nuclear containment efforts. In fact, I am either disappointed that such a Finding did not exist for 30 years, or ecstatic that it took Hersh 30 years to find a traitor willing to compromise the national security of this Grand Republic, or immensely angry that the administration intentionally leaked even the existence of such a highly classified document.
I suspect now that Hersh has spilled the beans, greater detail will make its way into the public domain. But, based on what I have seen so far, I would say this whole episode appears quite normal and appropriate.
On a related plane, there will be those who will condemn the administration for intentionally leaking classified material for political gain, along with an equally vociferous segment who will condemn the traitor(s) who disclosed classified material to a journalist. Regardless, the exposure of ongoing clandestine operations is wrong for any reason and every reason, as long as there is one pair of sandals or boots on the ground in Iran.
As always, “That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”
An article for your critical review and cogitation:
“Gay Marriage Is Good for America”
by Jonathan Rauch
Wall Street Journal
Published: June 21, 2008; Page A9
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121400362307993399.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
I mentioned the first of the post-Boumediene {v. Bush [552 U.S. ___ (2008)]} [340] cases in last week’s Update [342] – Parhat v. Gates [DC CCA no. 06-1397 (2008)]. The court issued the redacted ruling this week, reversing the finding of the military’s Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) and declaring that Chinese ethnic-Uighur Huzaifa Parhat was not a battlefield combatant. The court gave the government another chance to present a proper evidentiary case or set him free. Circuit Judge Merrick B. Garland wrote the court’s opinion, and acknowledged that the CSRT noted, “no source document evidence was introduced to indicate . . . that the Detainee had actually joined ETIM (East Turkistan Islamic Movement, a Uighur independence group), or that he himself had personally committed any hostile acts against the United States or its coalition partners.” Garland went on to observe that “statements in classified documents that do not state (or, in most instances, even describe) the sources or rationales for [the Government’s substantiation] statements. Parhat denied knowing anything about an al Qaida or Taliban association with Uighur camps.” [Of course he would, wouldn’t he; how many bad guys confess their culpability?] The judge concluded and ordered, “We therefore direct the government to release or to transfer the petitioner (Parhat), or to expeditiously hold a new CSRT consistent with this opinion. This disposition is without prejudice to Parhat’s right to seek release immediately through a writ of habeas corpus in the district court, pursuant to the Supreme Court’s decision in Boumediene. We also deny, without prejudice, the government’s motion to designate certain unclassified material in the CSRT record as ‘protected information,’ subject to the filing of a renewed motion accompanied by pleadings sufficient to explain why such designations are warranted in this case.” I do not know and I doubt the Government will appeal to the Supremes given the recent Boumediene decision. Parhat may have been just another innocent tourist in a war zone, like so many of the others, but I remain unsympathetic. We have begun the journey down the path of making the combat military and field intelligence operatives into police officers, where every battlefield captive will have to be read their Miranda rights and provided a lawyer to represent them in court. I repeat my opinion . . . this is a foolish, self-destructive course . . . and, I would love to be proven wrong in this instance. Regrettably, I fear I shall not be proven wrong. War may seem like a barbaric human frailty, outmoded by our modern sensitivities; however, as long as there are bad men who seek to oppress others for their aggrandizement, we shall have war, as mankind has suffered since the creation or evolution, as your personal beliefs dictate. When we try to pretend war is not war, then we have probably begun the process of disintegration to which previous empires have succumbed.
Another perspective on this issue . . .
“The Enemy Detainee Mess”
REVIEW & OUTLOOK
Wall Street Journal
Published: July 3, 2008; Page A10
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121504362668624767.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
Additional comment and opinion are offered below.
Now, if that is not enough, let us put a little icing on this bitter and odiferous cake. The British Judiciary is apparently just as much troubled, grappling with the specter of international Islamo-fascism as we colonialists.
“Why the Brits Are Setting Terrorists Free”
by Melanie Phillips
Wall Street Journal
Published: July 1, 2008
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121486821701117583.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
I trust no one will be surprised when the barbarians show up at our homes to tell us how life is going to be under their generous and benevolent dicta. Hey, at least we can rest assured that we tried to be nice guys with these bastards who are trying to kill us.
For those who still may doubt the wisdom of the Heller decision [342], I offer this simple exercise. What is the broad, general purpose of each amendment in the Bill of Rights? My answers:
1st – religion, speech, press, assembly – protect citizen from government
2nd – keep & bear arms – ??
3rd – property – protect citizen from government
4th – unreasonable search & seizure – protect citizen from government
5th – self-incrimination – protect citizen from government
6th – speedy, public trial – protect citizen from government
7th – trial by jury – protect citizen from government
8th – no cruel and unusual punishment – protect citizen from government
9th – other rights retained by the People – protect citizen from government
10th – rights reserved to the states or the People – protect citizen from government
Now, when we look at the Bill of Rights in this manner, what do you think the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is?
Comments and contributions from Update no.342:
“A good article on interrogations.”
“Who You Gonna Believe -- Jack Bauer or Joe Navarro?”
By Jeff Stein
WeBlog: SpyTalk – Intelligence for Thinking People
June 26, 2008 7:00 AM
http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-search.cgi?tag=counterterrorism&blog_id=25&IncludeBlogs=25
My response:
In this debate, I have two (2) fundamental concerns / issues.
1.) The mixture of war and crime. The two human activities are categorically, elementally, and emphatically separate, different, distinct and un-mix-able. War is between Nations. Crime is between people. Perhaps, we made a very basic, fatal error in coining the term ‘war crimes’ in the aftermath of the WW2, as that has cajoled novice citizens into the grossly false notion that war is just a different, broader form of crime, and thus subject to criminal jurisprudence. The current folderol in which we are immersed accentuates the fallacy of such a ludicrous endeavor. To think that we can ‘try’ hundreds of thousands, or millions, of enemy combatants in a court of law is absurdity on an unprecedented and unimaginable scale. Usama bin Ladin may well be the divine genius he seems . . . in finding our greatest societal weakness and exploiting that weakness on an equally unprecedented scale. Because al-Qaeda is not a nation-state to which we can apply the rules of war, then they must be people, and thus subject to criminal law processes. I remain impotent to illuminate the fallaciousness of such reasoning, but my ineptitude hardly alters the reality of the War on Islamic Fascism that has boiled around us for 30 years and to which we belatedly became engaged a mere seven years ago.
2.) Definitions. My definition of torture in war is not the same as that touted by the popular Press. IMHO, a good portion of the present debate regarding ‘torture’ stems from the misjudgment of 1.) above, as well as the added dimensions of instant anonymous communications that are so common in today’s World. The criminal is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and as a consequence, the accused retains all rights, benefits and privileges as a citizen or resident alien. Enemy soldiers, or in this peculiar state of ambiguity battlefield combatants, are by definition outside the jurisdiction of the United States. The Geneva Convention and other international protocols have attempted to establish some modicum of order to confrontations between nation-states, and thus their operatives. The difference in the current conflict is, we have an enemy who operates beyond all forms of order. The definition of torture we seem to favor in the present conflict appears to be driven by the confusion of 1.) above.
Now, that said . . .
In war, we are not interested in evidence, but rather intelligence to save other Allied lives. The captive intelligence collection process has several dependent variables – threat, time, risk, battlefield conditions, et cetera. Battlefield intelligence interrogation is most definitely not prosecutorial interrogation. Because of time, threat, and such, battlefield captives need an inducement to extract information. That inducement probably taints the information. Captive information rarely, if ever, stands on its own. However, as with all battlefield intelligence collection processes, corroboration and validation are essential to producing actionable information. If there is no inducement, there is no intelligence.
Another contribution:
“Below is a comment on the Boumediene case that perhaps clarifies things. Professor Epstein teaches at the U. of Chicago and is a senior fellow at Hoover, so he has pretty impeccable conservative credentials.”
“How to Complicate Habeas Corpus”
Op-Ed Contributor
by Richard A. Epstein
New York Times
Published: June 21, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/21/opinion/21epstein.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
My reply:
Sadly, we are into the parsing of words . . . “that depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is.”
A writ of habeas corpus to test the classification as ‘enemy combatants’ will nearly, if not totally, have the same result, i.e., if they are not ‘enemy combatants,’ then they may be criminals. If not criminals, then they must be set free. I just finished reading the first of the post-Boumediene cases – Parhat v. Gates [DC CCA no. 06-1397 (2008)]. The process has begun.
The key word in your preamble to the Epstein article is ‘arrest.’ If any captive was indeed ‘arrested’ by law enforcement (subject to the rules of evidence), then yes, by all means, any such captives should have the right to test their detention by petition for writ of habeas corpus, as any accused criminal maintains. The difficulty in this instance is the very nature of the battlefield as dictated by our enemy. The circumstances of the capture of Boumediene and Parhat are indicative of the ambiguity of the current battlefield. Soldiers and intelligence operatives are not law enforcement and are certainly not trained, capable or charged with observing the rules of evidence and chain of custody requirements essential to the criminal justice process. I doubt any battlefield capture can withstand the scrutiny of proper judicial criminal review. The result . . . we shall indeed set ‘hardened terrorists’ and their supporters free.
I respect Epstein’s opinion regarding the law, but he clearly does not understand or appreciate the complicated ambiguity of contemporary warfare.
For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.
Another contribution:
“I truly am concerned about Obama. I already know he will not be my choice. I just pray that God will be the deciding factor in our choice this year. IF Obama is not the man he proclaims to be, then I pray that more of the truth of that fact will come to light before that fateful election day. Politics is such a dirty business. All the cutthroats trying to get into power, without any real plans for helping this country. I understand that this is a first in this country, as far as an African-American being so close to being in the highest office we have in this country. But there have been too many actions and statements made by him and his wife, to believe that they are looking for what is best for this country. Just as he said, if things got messy, he would stand with the Muslim Nation. And for his ‘Christian’ influence to be dominated by the hate-mongering of Pastor Wright for 20 years, that just leads me to believe some of that had to infiltrate his system too. He is bi-racial, but he is only focusing on his black Muslim heritage. I have read that his mother was not a strong religious person, in fact, might have been considered an atheist, so in his formative years, his religious influence came from the Islam religion. With all our conflicts with the Moslems, I don't understand how we cannot have doubts about this man.
“This is the forward, but I cannot say that I will argue with it. I don't like all the language, but I guess he felt strongly enough to use it here.
“The following is just my opinion: If you don't like it, Tango Sierra, (military personnel will understand this), then delete this e-mail. But old Ron is pissed-off with the Dem. Party building up this non-patriotic, Black Muslim SOB. His wife is no better, she is only NOW proud of America, since her old man is now the front runner for the Dem. Party. Just study his background. I cannot figure out how he has so many people fooled. The following is from The Book of Revelations, the anti-Christ will be a man, in his 40s, of Muslim descent, who will deceive the nations with a persuasive language, and have a massive Christ-like appeal .... The prophecy says that people will flock to him and he will promise false hope and world peace, and when he is in power, will destroy everything. Now who the hell does that sound like? And now he has designed his own Presidential Seal, and if, God forbid, he should win the election, will he be sworn in on the Muslim Koran instead of the Bible????? Think about this!!!!!!! Old Ron will shut up, I feel a little better now. ‘I approve of this message.’”
My response:
While I do have some concerns, I do not share your view or ‘Old Ron’s’ view of Barack Obama.
First, I think he is a far better man than many are giving him credit.
Second, the President of the United States is not a dictator, able to operate unilaterally. While the office wields enormous power, his decisions and intended direction will be subject to congressional, judicial and public review and scrutiny.
Third, whether he is a closet Muslim (which I truly believe he is not) is irrelevant. Allah is God by a different name. The Koran is a holy book, just as the Bible and Talmud are. Last time I checked, being an avowed and practicing Protestant Christian is not a prerequisite for performing the duties of President.
Fourth, Islam is a noble religion, just as Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, and Hinduism are. This Grand Republic is far stronger than any single individual. I still believe we must separate church and state. Religion is a private matter. Politics is a public matter. And, the two should not be transposed.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
When in the course of human events . . .
We hold these truths to be self-evident . . .
The very Liberty we enjoy today sprouted from those glorious words, 232 years ago, and those that followed. May God bless the freedom He has given all of mankind. Someday, all of mankind shall enjoy their God-given rights and live in peace as God intended.
The follow-up news items:
-- A few more thoughts on the Heller decision [342]:
1. We came within one vote of losing a constitutional protection of our individual rights.
2. This is why a president’s supreme court nominations are so bloody important.
3.. An additional perspective below.
-- The African Union Summit welcomed Zimbabwean dictator Robert Mugabe as a bona fide state leader. [330, 336, 342] They failed in their opportunity to do the correct thing for the Zimbabwean people. I am truly sorry to say, if Zimbabwe’s neighbors cannot see reality, then I shall suggest they are not worth a single drop of American blood or a single cent of treasure. We shall continue our utterances of outrage and protest because that is what we do, but Zimbabweans must find the will to change their lot in life. As long as the killing is confined to that tragically impoverished country, the World just does not care. Where is our humanity?
-- President Bush nominated Lieutenant General Ann E. Dunwoody, USA, for promotion to the rank of General (4 stars), the first woman in U.S. history to be so appointed, and to be posted as Commanding General, Army Materiel Command. Congratulations, General Dunwoody. Senate confirmation awaits.
-- While the details of the Columbian hostage rescue mission are a little odd to me, I shall give them the benefit of the doubt and say congratulations to the government of Columbia for the ingenious rescue of 3 American and 12 Columbian captives held for many years by Marxist FARC terrorists. Well done!
I recognized the following article in an earlier Update [210] and protested the violation of national security in wartime.
“Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts”
by James Risen and Eric Lichtblau
New York Times
Published: December 16, 2005
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16program.html
As a consequence of the Times exposé, the President acknowledged the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP) in a radio broadcast the following day. A number of lawsuits followed, including one filed by the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, Inc., an Oregon Nonprofit Corporation, and Plaintiffs in the case of Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation v Bush. In February 2004, Plaintiff’s alleged that as a consequence of the Government’s TSP, the Federal Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) froze Al-Haramain’s assets while investigating whether Al-Haramain was engaged in terrorist activities. During the discovery process, the Government – namely OFAC – inadvertently disclosed to the Plaintiffs a clearly marked, TOP SECRET document reportedly identifying the products of warrantless surveillance of Al-Haramain. The meanderings of this case through the Judiciary have already exceeded the capacity of this humble forum as it began with an order by District Judge Garr M. King, United States District Court, District of Oregon, which was appealed to the 9th Circuit, which in turn combined with other judicial actions and remanded back to the lower court. The latest event was reported in:
“Judge Rejects Bush’s View on Wiretaps”
by Eric Lichtblau
New York Times
Published: July 3, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/washington/03fisa.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
The principal issue in the now titled In Re: National Security Agency Telecommunications Records Litigation [Case M:06-cv-01791-VRW (2008)] has become a contest over the contents of the Government’s classified document, now referred to as the “Sealed Document.” United States District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker, Northern District of California, dismissed the case with leave to amend, which means the Plaintiffs did not provide an adequate argument to overcome the state secrets privilege of the Executive. I suspect this case is far from over. The trip down memory lane displayed in the court documents made public to date accentuates a number of societal issues. One of many issues in this and the other associated cases rests in the reality that some American citizens as well as both authorized resident and illegal aliens are enemy operatives, direct supporters of enemy agents, or sympathizers who offer passive acquiescence to enemy activities. We have welcomed foreigners into our midst who are intent upon the destruction or at least immobilization of the United States. These individuals and groups have learned our systems and processes, to use them carefully for cover of their dastardly work. The Government recognized the pervasiveness of the intermingled threat and took extraordinary measures under their liberal interpretation of the legislated counter-terrorism tools and Article II of the Constitution. The results to date tend to validate the Government’s actions. However, as we can see in this litigation, the equally extraordinary potential for abuse by the Federal Government cannot be ignored. The courts have illuminated the past abuses of the Executive that led to the Church Committee and the resultant Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA): [PL 95-511]. The excesses of FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover and President Richard M. Nixon diminished the authority and narrowed the latitude of action available to the Executive. President George W. Bush stretched those constraints far beyond commonly accepted limits. While I have given the Federal Executive exceptional wartime latitude, the signs of abuse are mounting, and we are likely facing renewed efforts to further constrain the President, which will not be a positive action for our ability to wage war successfully. This particular case gives us a sad view of the current Executive that is trying mightily to do what must be done in the War on Islamic Fascism, but is hampered by the arrogance of power and the ineptitude of its minions. I believe the Government needs the power of the TSP et al, but security at the price of our freedom is no security whatsoever. The vigil continues.
A long-time friend and contributor asked:
“Have you seen anything on the recently approved Presidential Finding that authorizes $400M for covert operations in Iran with authority to use deadly force in defense? Ostensibly the op is under Cheney and will try to destabilize the current Iranian government. I heard about it on NPR today [Monday, 30.June], so I don't have any secret source.”
My answer:
The first public acknowledgment of the covert initiative in Iran was a news flash and subsequent interviews with Seymour Hersh about his article:
“Preparing the Battlefield – The Bush Administration steps up its secret moves against Iran”
by Seymour M. Hersh
The New Yorker magazine
Published: July 7, 2008
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh
A Presidential Finding as well as the conduct of such activity would certainly not be a surprise to me given the history of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the last 30 years and the IRI’s continuing defiance of international nuclear containment efforts. In fact, I am either disappointed that such a Finding did not exist for 30 years, or ecstatic that it took Hersh 30 years to find a traitor willing to compromise the national security of this Grand Republic, or immensely angry that the administration intentionally leaked even the existence of such a highly classified document.
I suspect now that Hersh has spilled the beans, greater detail will make its way into the public domain. But, based on what I have seen so far, I would say this whole episode appears quite normal and appropriate.
On a related plane, there will be those who will condemn the administration for intentionally leaking classified material for political gain, along with an equally vociferous segment who will condemn the traitor(s) who disclosed classified material to a journalist. Regardless, the exposure of ongoing clandestine operations is wrong for any reason and every reason, as long as there is one pair of sandals or boots on the ground in Iran.
As always, “That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”
An article for your critical review and cogitation:
“Gay Marriage Is Good for America”
by Jonathan Rauch
Wall Street Journal
Published: June 21, 2008; Page A9
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121400362307993399.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
I mentioned the first of the post-Boumediene {v. Bush [552 U.S. ___ (2008)]} [340] cases in last week’s Update [342] – Parhat v. Gates [DC CCA no. 06-1397 (2008)]. The court issued the redacted ruling this week, reversing the finding of the military’s Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) and declaring that Chinese ethnic-Uighur Huzaifa Parhat was not a battlefield combatant. The court gave the government another chance to present a proper evidentiary case or set him free. Circuit Judge Merrick B. Garland wrote the court’s opinion, and acknowledged that the CSRT noted, “no source document evidence was introduced to indicate . . . that the Detainee had actually joined ETIM (East Turkistan Islamic Movement, a Uighur independence group), or that he himself had personally committed any hostile acts against the United States or its coalition partners.” Garland went on to observe that “statements in classified documents that do not state (or, in most instances, even describe) the sources or rationales for [the Government’s substantiation] statements. Parhat denied knowing anything about an al Qaida or Taliban association with Uighur camps.” [Of course he would, wouldn’t he; how many bad guys confess their culpability?] The judge concluded and ordered, “We therefore direct the government to release or to transfer the petitioner (Parhat), or to expeditiously hold a new CSRT consistent with this opinion. This disposition is without prejudice to Parhat’s right to seek release immediately through a writ of habeas corpus in the district court, pursuant to the Supreme Court’s decision in Boumediene. We also deny, without prejudice, the government’s motion to designate certain unclassified material in the CSRT record as ‘protected information,’ subject to the filing of a renewed motion accompanied by pleadings sufficient to explain why such designations are warranted in this case.” I do not know and I doubt the Government will appeal to the Supremes given the recent Boumediene decision. Parhat may have been just another innocent tourist in a war zone, like so many of the others, but I remain unsympathetic. We have begun the journey down the path of making the combat military and field intelligence operatives into police officers, where every battlefield captive will have to be read their Miranda rights and provided a lawyer to represent them in court. I repeat my opinion . . . this is a foolish, self-destructive course . . . and, I would love to be proven wrong in this instance. Regrettably, I fear I shall not be proven wrong. War may seem like a barbaric human frailty, outmoded by our modern sensitivities; however, as long as there are bad men who seek to oppress others for their aggrandizement, we shall have war, as mankind has suffered since the creation or evolution, as your personal beliefs dictate. When we try to pretend war is not war, then we have probably begun the process of disintegration to which previous empires have succumbed.
Another perspective on this issue . . .
“The Enemy Detainee Mess”
REVIEW & OUTLOOK
Wall Street Journal
Published: July 3, 2008; Page A10
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121504362668624767.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
Additional comment and opinion are offered below.
Now, if that is not enough, let us put a little icing on this bitter and odiferous cake. The British Judiciary is apparently just as much troubled, grappling with the specter of international Islamo-fascism as we colonialists.
“Why the Brits Are Setting Terrorists Free”
by Melanie Phillips
Wall Street Journal
Published: July 1, 2008
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121486821701117583.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
I trust no one will be surprised when the barbarians show up at our homes to tell us how life is going to be under their generous and benevolent dicta. Hey, at least we can rest assured that we tried to be nice guys with these bastards who are trying to kill us.
For those who still may doubt the wisdom of the Heller decision [342], I offer this simple exercise. What is the broad, general purpose of each amendment in the Bill of Rights? My answers:
1st – religion, speech, press, assembly – protect citizen from government
2nd – keep & bear arms – ??
3rd – property – protect citizen from government
4th – unreasonable search & seizure – protect citizen from government
5th – self-incrimination – protect citizen from government
6th – speedy, public trial – protect citizen from government
7th – trial by jury – protect citizen from government
8th – no cruel and unusual punishment – protect citizen from government
9th – other rights retained by the People – protect citizen from government
10th – rights reserved to the states or the People – protect citizen from government
Now, when we look at the Bill of Rights in this manner, what do you think the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is?
Comments and contributions from Update no.342:
“A good article on interrogations.”
“Who You Gonna Believe -- Jack Bauer or Joe Navarro?”
By Jeff Stein
WeBlog: SpyTalk – Intelligence for Thinking People
June 26, 2008 7:00 AM
http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-search.cgi?tag=counterterrorism&blog_id=25&IncludeBlogs=25
My response:
In this debate, I have two (2) fundamental concerns / issues.
1.) The mixture of war and crime. The two human activities are categorically, elementally, and emphatically separate, different, distinct and un-mix-able. War is between Nations. Crime is between people. Perhaps, we made a very basic, fatal error in coining the term ‘war crimes’ in the aftermath of the WW2, as that has cajoled novice citizens into the grossly false notion that war is just a different, broader form of crime, and thus subject to criminal jurisprudence. The current folderol in which we are immersed accentuates the fallacy of such a ludicrous endeavor. To think that we can ‘try’ hundreds of thousands, or millions, of enemy combatants in a court of law is absurdity on an unprecedented and unimaginable scale. Usama bin Ladin may well be the divine genius he seems . . . in finding our greatest societal weakness and exploiting that weakness on an equally unprecedented scale. Because al-Qaeda is not a nation-state to which we can apply the rules of war, then they must be people, and thus subject to criminal law processes. I remain impotent to illuminate the fallaciousness of such reasoning, but my ineptitude hardly alters the reality of the War on Islamic Fascism that has boiled around us for 30 years and to which we belatedly became engaged a mere seven years ago.
2.) Definitions. My definition of torture in war is not the same as that touted by the popular Press. IMHO, a good portion of the present debate regarding ‘torture’ stems from the misjudgment of 1.) above, as well as the added dimensions of instant anonymous communications that are so common in today’s World. The criminal is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and as a consequence, the accused retains all rights, benefits and privileges as a citizen or resident alien. Enemy soldiers, or in this peculiar state of ambiguity battlefield combatants, are by definition outside the jurisdiction of the United States. The Geneva Convention and other international protocols have attempted to establish some modicum of order to confrontations between nation-states, and thus their operatives. The difference in the current conflict is, we have an enemy who operates beyond all forms of order. The definition of torture we seem to favor in the present conflict appears to be driven by the confusion of 1.) above.
Now, that said . . .
In war, we are not interested in evidence, but rather intelligence to save other Allied lives. The captive intelligence collection process has several dependent variables – threat, time, risk, battlefield conditions, et cetera. Battlefield intelligence interrogation is most definitely not prosecutorial interrogation. Because of time, threat, and such, battlefield captives need an inducement to extract information. That inducement probably taints the information. Captive information rarely, if ever, stands on its own. However, as with all battlefield intelligence collection processes, corroboration and validation are essential to producing actionable information. If there is no inducement, there is no intelligence.
Another contribution:
“Below is a comment on the Boumediene case that perhaps clarifies things. Professor Epstein teaches at the U. of Chicago and is a senior fellow at Hoover, so he has pretty impeccable conservative credentials.”
“How to Complicate Habeas Corpus”
Op-Ed Contributor
by Richard A. Epstein
New York Times
Published: June 21, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/21/opinion/21epstein.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
My reply:
Sadly, we are into the parsing of words . . . “that depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is.”
A writ of habeas corpus to test the classification as ‘enemy combatants’ will nearly, if not totally, have the same result, i.e., if they are not ‘enemy combatants,’ then they may be criminals. If not criminals, then they must be set free. I just finished reading the first of the post-Boumediene cases – Parhat v. Gates [DC CCA no. 06-1397 (2008)]. The process has begun.
The key word in your preamble to the Epstein article is ‘arrest.’ If any captive was indeed ‘arrested’ by law enforcement (subject to the rules of evidence), then yes, by all means, any such captives should have the right to test their detention by petition for writ of habeas corpus, as any accused criminal maintains. The difficulty in this instance is the very nature of the battlefield as dictated by our enemy. The circumstances of the capture of Boumediene and Parhat are indicative of the ambiguity of the current battlefield. Soldiers and intelligence operatives are not law enforcement and are certainly not trained, capable or charged with observing the rules of evidence and chain of custody requirements essential to the criminal justice process. I doubt any battlefield capture can withstand the scrutiny of proper judicial criminal review. The result . . . we shall indeed set ‘hardened terrorists’ and their supporters free.
I respect Epstein’s opinion regarding the law, but he clearly does not understand or appreciate the complicated ambiguity of contemporary warfare.
For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.
Another contribution:
“I truly am concerned about Obama. I already know he will not be my choice. I just pray that God will be the deciding factor in our choice this year. IF Obama is not the man he proclaims to be, then I pray that more of the truth of that fact will come to light before that fateful election day. Politics is such a dirty business. All the cutthroats trying to get into power, without any real plans for helping this country. I understand that this is a first in this country, as far as an African-American being so close to being in the highest office we have in this country. But there have been too many actions and statements made by him and his wife, to believe that they are looking for what is best for this country. Just as he said, if things got messy, he would stand with the Muslim Nation. And for his ‘Christian’ influence to be dominated by the hate-mongering of Pastor Wright for 20 years, that just leads me to believe some of that had to infiltrate his system too. He is bi-racial, but he is only focusing on his black Muslim heritage. I have read that his mother was not a strong religious person, in fact, might have been considered an atheist, so in his formative years, his religious influence came from the Islam religion. With all our conflicts with the Moslems, I don't understand how we cannot have doubts about this man.
“This is the forward, but I cannot say that I will argue with it. I don't like all the language, but I guess he felt strongly enough to use it here.
“The following is just my opinion: If you don't like it, Tango Sierra, (military personnel will understand this), then delete this e-mail. But old Ron is pissed-off with the Dem. Party building up this non-patriotic, Black Muslim SOB. His wife is no better, she is only NOW proud of America, since her old man is now the front runner for the Dem. Party. Just study his background. I cannot figure out how he has so many people fooled. The following is from The Book of Revelations, the anti-Christ will be a man, in his 40s, of Muslim descent, who will deceive the nations with a persuasive language, and have a massive Christ-like appeal .... The prophecy says that people will flock to him and he will promise false hope and world peace, and when he is in power, will destroy everything. Now who the hell does that sound like? And now he has designed his own Presidential Seal, and if, God forbid, he should win the election, will he be sworn in on the Muslim Koran instead of the Bible????? Think about this!!!!!!! Old Ron will shut up, I feel a little better now. ‘I approve of this message.’”
My response:
While I do have some concerns, I do not share your view or ‘Old Ron’s’ view of Barack Obama.
First, I think he is a far better man than many are giving him credit.
Second, the President of the United States is not a dictator, able to operate unilaterally. While the office wields enormous power, his decisions and intended direction will be subject to congressional, judicial and public review and scrutiny.
Third, whether he is a closet Muslim (which I truly believe he is not) is irrelevant. Allah is God by a different name. The Koran is a holy book, just as the Bible and Talmud are. Last time I checked, being an avowed and practicing Protestant Christian is not a prerequisite for performing the duties of President.
Fourth, Islam is a noble religion, just as Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, and Hinduism are. This Grand Republic is far stronger than any single individual. I still believe we must separate church and state. Religion is a private matter. Politics is a public matter. And, the two should not be transposed.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment